P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 10 , 2007 22 : 22
CATALOGUES 2–3 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 69for it.). Thode, 1913 ,no. 405 (c.15 0 4.). Popp, 1925 b,
p. 72 (With Cat. 1 part of a sketchbook.). Popp, 1925 – 6 ,
pp. 140 , 143 (Recto: not before15 0 1.). Baumgart, 1937 ,
pp. 36 – 7 (c. 15 0 1. Recto: Michelangelo. Verso: after
Michelangelo?). Berenson, 1938 ,no.15 6 0(As 1903 .). De
Tolnay, 1943 a, p. 181 , nos. 11 (Verso: spring–summer
15 0 1; similar study of a male back known in “a copy” [sic]
Louvre Inv. 718 verso/J 9 /Corpus 47 and Louvre Inv. 714
verso/J 4 /Corpus 19 stylistically identical with this and
[Cat. 1 ].); no. 12 (Recto: same date as verso; Triton’s hel-
met perhaps inspired by Leonardo.). Goldscheider, 1951 ,
no. 12 (Verso: c.15 0 1.); no. 11 (Recto: the main figure
“derives from an antique statue ofMercury...fins were
an afterthought.”). De Tolnay, 1951 ,pp. 29 , 290 (Verso:
spring–summer15 0 1;evidence of Michelangelo’s inter-
est in the art of Leonardo.). Wilde, 1953 a,pp. 3 – 4 (One
of a group of sheets, perhaps leaves of same sketchbook,
that can be dated with certainty in the period15 0 1– 3 .).
Wilde, 1953 exh., no. 13 (Verso: “possibly connected with
the marbleDavid.”). Parker, 1956 ,no. 292 (c.15 0 1– 2 ).
Dussler, 1959 ,no. 192 (Recto: inextricably linked with
Cat. 2 and Louvre Inv. 714 /J 4 /Corpus 19 , datable15 0 1.
Copy drawings in Vienna and Montpellier based on orig-
inals of same period. Verso: Leonardesque, like [Cat. 1 ].).
Exh. London, 1960 ,no. 538. Berenson, 1961 ,no.15 6 0
(As 1903 / 1938 .). Barocchi, 1962 ,p. 6 (Michelangelo;
compared with CB 59 F/B 2 /Corpus 32 .). Berti, 1965 ,
pp. 393 , 401 (Recto: Triton resembles the Settignano
Tr iton.Verso: link with Louvre Inv. 714 /J 4 /Corpus 19 .).
Goldscheider, 1965 ,no. 12 verso; no. 11 recto (As 1951 .).
Weinberger, 1967 ,p. 87 (Verso: see Cat. 2 .). Hartt,
1971 ,no. 17 (Recto:15 0 1– 2. Same model as [Cat. 1 ];
another self-portrait.); no. 18 (Verso:15 0 1– 2. Study of
raised arm “suggests the laterDying Slave.”). LeBrooy,
1972 ,p. 99 (Verso: studies of back compared with a
terracotta model attributed by LeBrooy to Michelan-
gelo in a Montreal private collection.). Gere and Turner,
1975 ,no. 13 (with [Cat. 1 ] “may have formed part
of the same sketchbook.”). De Tolnay, 1975 , Corpus I,
no. 18 (Recto: mid-15 0 1; the style of15 0 4– 5 “appare
piu disciplinato.” [A] based, according to P. Meller,`
on torso Belvedere. No immediate links withDavid
orDying Slave. Heads at base recall SettignanoTr iton.
Ve r so: contemporary.). Liebert, 1983 ,pp. 94 – 5 (Recto:
“Michelangelo’s head [i.e., A] with its taut and depres-
sive set, moves sequentially from a position close to the
breasts of the Madonna in [Berlin 1363 /Corpus 27 ]to
near the undersized penis of the triton....This change
in placement suggests a renunciation of the breast and
women as sources of nurturance and a tentative move-
ment toward the penis and men as more reliable andsatisfying providers....[T]he figure of the triton bears
striking similarities to the Silenus of the Medici [palace]
Dionysus tondo...[this] suggests...Michelangelo’s feel-
ing of kinship with Dionysus, but here in the con-
text of a clear emergence of sexual elements....Perhaps
Michelangelo introduced...[the triton’s fins] to divert
and even ridicule the homosexual implications in the
drawing.”). Bonsanti, 1992 ,p. 345 (Recto: link between
tritons here and on [Cat. 1 verso] with wall drawing from
Buonarroti villa at Settignano.”). Paoletti, 1992 ,p. 432
(Heads are self-portraits.). Bonsanti, 1999 – 2000 ,p. 220
(Sketches of tritons on Cats. 1 verso and 2 recto support
the authenticity of the SettignanoTr iton.).CATALOGUE 3A Standing Male Figure
184 6. 59 ;R. 48. 3 ;P.II 313 ;Corpus 249 bisDimensions: 97 × 91 mmMedium
Pen and ink.Condition
There are repaired tears, skinning, edge nicks, and
ingrained dirt, with general discolouration, local stain-
ing, foxing, and surface dirt. The verso is not visible.Description
This small drawing of a standing figure shows several
superimposed poses. At first, the left leg was crossed over
the right leg at the ankle, the right arm was bent across
the chest and the figure was leaning on a support braced
under the left arm. The head seems to have been tilted
down. At this stage, it will be noted, the pose was similar
to that here proposed for Michelangelo’s lost earlyHercules
(see Cat. 81 ). The left leg was then straightened, the arms
wereraised and outstretched in a cruciform shape, the
head was raised and turned to the figure’s right.
Tothe left of the figure is the trace of a line, largely
erased, which runs down the page.Discussion
The single serious hypothesis about the purpose of this
fragment, obviously cut from a larger sheet, is due to
Wilde, who thought that it was for a mourning figure in a
Calvary, such as that in the British Museum (W 32 /Corpus
87 ;red chalk, 394 × 281 mm), probably of the first half of